Women in Local Government

Women as Mayors and City Council Members

Currently, women make up 20 percent of mayors of cities with a population over 30,000 and 19 percent of the 100 largest cities in the United States. Figure 1 provides the available data on the share of women as mayors of larger cities in the United States over time. As is clear from the figure, a growth in the numbers of women mayors occurred in the early 1990s but plateaued over the last quarter century. Both patterns (i.e., the growth and the plateau) are consistent with women’s representation at the state and national levels (Osborn 2012). Nonwhite women serve as mayors at similar rates to white women: Of nonwhite mayors, 17 percent were women in 2006. While nonwhite women have served as the mayors of large cities like Atlanta, Baltimore, Houston, Oakland, and Washington, DC, the majority serve in smaller cities (Swain and Lien 2017; Hardy-Fanta et al. 2016). Hardy-Fanta and colleagues (2016) find that Latinas made up half of all the Latinos serving as mayors in 2012, and women were 34 percent of Asian American mayors.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Percentage of cities with a woman mayor and city manager, by year. Note: Mayors: Percentage of women mayors of cities with 30,000+ population. Source: Center for American Women in Politics (various years), U.S. Conference of Mayors, Marschall (2014), and Flammang (1985). City managers: percentage of women city managers. Source: Szymborski (1996), Fox and Schuhmann (2001), and ICMA (2014).

Academics and practitioners do not have access to routine or comprehensive information on women’s representation on city councils in the United States. Samples from larger cities or data on some states have found women’s share of council seats to range from 20 to 30 percent over the last two decades (Crowder-Meyer, Gadarian, and Trounstine 2015; Svara 2003; ICMA 2001; Holman 2014; Bullock and MacManus 1991). In 2006, nonwhite women were just under a third (32 percent) of all nonwhite city council members; women were a third of black city councilmembers, a quarter of Latino councilors, and a fifth of Asian American representatives (Hardy-Fanta et al. 2016).

Women in County Government

While women mayors and city councilmembers receive the most scholarly attention, these offices represent only a fraction of local positions in the United States. Of particular note, the “forgotten governments” (Benton et al. 2007) at the county level include such offices as county supervisors and commissioners and specialized positions like county sheriffs. The limited extant research suggests women hold a very small number of these positions. In an early study, MacManus (1996) noted that “that the proportion of women serving on county governing boards is smaller than any type of elective body other than the U.S. Congress” (p. 66). Evidence suggests even Congress has passed counties in women’s representation: more than half of county boards have no women on them (Kellogg et al. 2017), and county boards are the office with the lowest level of representation of nonwhite women (Swain and Lien 2017). For example, Latinas are less than 20 percent of Latino county board members.

Women in Appointed Positions

Women are also underrepresented in important appointed positions in local governments, with little evidence of improvement over the last three decades. Of these, the city manager stands out as particularly problematic, as displayed in Figure 1. Women were 3 percent of city managers in 1981; this number increased to 11 percent of city managers in 1986 (Szymborski 1996; Fox and Schuhmann 2001). But in 1999, the share was still 11 percent and had increased to only 13 percent by 2014 (International City/County Management Association [ICMA] 2014a; Fox and Schuhmann 2001). Chief administrative officers (CAOs) follow similar patterns: While the share has increased dramatically from 1.3 percent in 1974 to 14.4 percent in 2012–2013, women are far from parity in the position (ICMA 2014b). While earlier work addressed women’s representation in the county supervisor position (Flammang 1985), which have broad powers and control local resources (Benton et al. 2007), we know almost nothing currently about women’s representation in these positions. Research on women in public service more generally argues that women face particularly high barriers when seeking positions higher up in the hierarchy (Alkadry and Tower 2014).

Women in Specialized Positions

Running for a stereotypically feminine office such as a clerk, secretary, or a position associated with education like the school board can advantage women (Rosenwasser and Dean 1989; Deckman 2007a; Sweet-Cushman 2017; Crowder-Meyer, Gadarian, and Trounstine 2015). School boards have received the most scholarly attention of these local offices—women make up approximately 44 percent of school board members, which is far higher than any other major group of political leaders (National School Board Association 2017; Center for American Women in Politics [CAWP] 2017). This is also true for nonwhite women: In 2006, black women also held 44 percent of the school boards seats occupied by black officials, while Latinas held almost half of the seats held by Latinos (Hardy-Fanta et al. 2016).

Even less is known about women’s representation on special district boards, such as water boards or elected zoning commissions, even though these are the “most prevalent” forms of government in the United States (Bauroth 2005, 193). The truth is, though, that very little is known about the composition of these bodies at all, let alone questions of gender parity. Tracking who runs for and wins special district elections—and where these seats are elected versus appointed—is a task worthy of future research.

What we do know about specialized offices suggests important avenues for research. For example, women are the majority (84 percent) of candidates and winners of city clerkships in California (Crowder-Meyer, Gadarian, and Trounstine 2015). The authors argue that voters’ gender stereotypes help women in this circumstance, given that the office is associated with secretarial work and other feminine tasks. Future research should focus on understanding why women run for and hold this position, yet hold less than 10 percent of other specialized offices like county sheriffs (Farris and Holman 2015; Lublin and Brewer 2003). Evaluating these extreme cases might aid scholars in understanding how gender stereotypes and gender segregation in the careers lead to women holding less or more of particular local offices.

Institutions and the Election of Women

A recent and robust body of scholarship examines the factors that promote or inhibit women’s representation on as mayor and on city councils, finding that institutional arrangements shape women’s representation. Consistent with other levels of office, Smith, Reingold, and Owens (2011) find that the probability of women’s representation increases as the prestige of the office declines (see also Bullock and MacManus 1991), as women are less likely to be elected when the mayor is directly elected by voters rather than via a city council vote. At the same time, a vigorous debate exists about the effect of prestige—as measured by district versus at-large electoral arrangements—on the election of women to city council seats. While some find that women are more likely to be elected via district elections (Crowder-Meyer, Gadarian, and Trounstine 2015), others find no effect of the type of council seat (Smith, Reingold, and Owens 2011; Bullock and MacManus 1991). And, although women may be more likely to win in district seats, they may be more willing to run for at-large seats, as women make up a larger share of at-large city councils (Trounstine and Valdini 2008; Bullock and MacManus 1991). Other institutional factors, such as salary, term length, and seat magnitude, are largely not associated with higher or lower levels of women’s representation (Smith, Reingold, and Owens 2011; Trounstine and Valdini 2008).

Not all institutional factors influence all women—or all women in all offices—in the same manner. For example, Trounstine and Valdini’s (2008) research also shows that district elections reduce white women’s electoral fortunes but does not similarly affect Latinas or black women. And Hardy-Fanta et al. (2016) find black elected officials are more likely than Asian American and Latino/as to be elected in district elections (as compared to at-large seats). Yet, black women are less likely to be elected in district elections (but more likely to from a multimember district vs. a single member district) when compared to black men. This research (again) demonstrates the importance of examining how institutions combine with intersecting candidate characteristics including gender, race, and ethnicity to shape who holds local office.

Demographics and the Election of Women

Demographics also may matter in ways that are consistent with research on women’s representation in state and national levels. For example, comparative research finds that women’s labor force participation is associated with higher levels of women’s local representation (Sundström and Stockemer 2015), and Smith, Reingold, and Owens (2011) find that women are more likely to be elected as a mayor in cities where women in the city’s population have higher incomes and levels of education.

Women’s activism in cities may also matter in the election of women. Smith, Reingold, and Owens (2011) find that a diversity group of women’s local activists decreases the likelihood of a city election of a woman mayor. While they do not test this claim, the authors posit that fragmented women’s activism might be less useful to women running than a few centralized women’s organizations. This is consistent with other research that finds that women candidates for local office often rely on local women’s advocacy organizations when seeking office (Holman 2015; Marschall 2002). As such, future research might evaluate how local women’s activism shapes women’s political candidacies; it may be that more women emerge as candidates with a robust local women’s activism culture but are not more likely to be elected.

Women as Candidates for Elected and Appointed Office

The majority of the scholarship on women’s representation in local politics focuses on women’s electoral chances once they run for office, leaving questions of where women emerge as local candidates unanswered (see Crowder-Meyer, Gadarian, and Trounstine 2015; Trounstine and Valdini 2008, for exceptions). Local organizations, including political parties, play a key role in the recruitment of women to run for local office. Of particular interest are Crowder-Meyer’s (2013) findings that political parties engage in “gendered recruitment,” limiting the number of women recruited for office, even when local parties are open to women running. As she demonstrates, local party leaders are largely men who recruit from networks of people they know—who are also mostly men (see also Niven 1998). In this way, the (lack of) diversity among local party leaders shapes the supply of women running for office.

Looking at the scarcity of women city managers, scholars have argued that training (Beaty and Davis 2012) and mentoring (Fox and Schuhmann 2001) might hold the key to increasing women’s appointment to this position; candidate training programs suggest the same for encouraging more women to run for local office (Sanbonmatsu 2015). Similarly, the ICMA recommends increasing the number of women as CAOs by encouraging their participation in organizations.

Other research suggests explicit gender biases keep women from seeking or holding local administrative positions; for example, in the 2012–2013 survey, the ICMA (2014) found that 60 percent of women reported “inappropriate or disrespectful” comments from a commissioner or council member. And, nearly a third of women reported exclusion from a professional event or organization because of their gender (ICMA 2014b). Addressing these explicit biases may require training across organizations (including elected officials) to remove and remediate gender biases.

Work–life balance and personal concerns may also play a role in the ability of women to seek or hold local appointed positions. In evaluating the career paths of women graduates from MPA program, Aguado and Frederickson (2012) find that while women graduates from the program are significantly less likely to become city managers, women also pay significant career costs from having a family (see also Alkadry and Tower 2014). For example, while the difference in rates of being a city manager disappears between married men and women, those same were less likely to say that they have relocated for their careers and are more likely to report that competing demands from spouses and children have interfered with their careers. These findings suggest avenues for research on whether city councils have gendered preferences in appointing city managers—and how women might circumvent those expectations.

Changing Recruitment Patterns

Simply expanding recruiting networks and providing training may not be enough to encourage a large number of women to run for office or put themselves forward for administrative positions. For example, Preece and colleagues (2015; 2016) use a series of field experiments to find that women are not necessarily interested in running for office, even when parties recruit them and offer candidate trainings. And, in surveying local leaders, Butler and Preece (2016) find that women officeholders are less likely to believe that party leaders will give women the necessary support to run for office.

These recent studies have rightfully brought attention back to parties at the local level and offer opportunities for additional studies, including how party and gender shape the specific pathways that women and men follow to local office. Research also highlights the need to understand where and when women emerge as candidates for local office in a more comprehensive fashion, including how race, ethnicity, and class interact with these choices.

Consequences of Women’s Underrepresentation

The scarce numbers of women at the local level potentially shapes women’s representation at other levels of office in the United States. Local positions serve as a path to higher levels of office (Sanbonmatsu and Carroll 2009; Crowder-Meyer and Lauderdale 2014), including from city council to mayor (Budd, Myers, and Longoria 2016). If women are underrepresented at the local level, this contributes to women’s continued lack of parity in state and national offices. Understanding local leaders as strategic actors is important, particularly if scholars are interested in whether they show progressive ambition. Within this frame, future research might evaluate when and where women who hold local office choose to run for an additional office.

Examining the literature on women’s representation across local positions reveals several patterns. First, women remain in the minority of most elected and appointed positions in local government; this is especially true for women of color. There is also a great deal that we do not know about how local leadership is gendered, including simple numbers of women who serve in many of these offices. This includes knowing almost nothing about women’s representation on appointed boards or in high-level administrative positions like police chiefs and budget directors. We need comprehensive efforts to document women’s representation across local bodies. Second, we know that institutions matter, as do demographics, but the ways these factors interact to shape women’s representation deserve more attention. This is particularly true when we look at where women of color are successful in running for office. Third, running for offices traditionally considered “masculine”—which are most local offices—disadvantage women, but they may obtain some benefits when running for stereotypically “feminine” offices like the city clerk and school board. Future research might explicitly test how voters stereotype candidates for local offices across various positions. Fourth, it is clear that there are not any easy answers in seeking to identify how to increase women’s representation. At the same time, however, it is clear that additional research is needed to understand when and where efforts to recruit and promote women, especially a diverse pool of women, to local positions might be successful.

Gender and Policy Attitudes

Do men and women in local office report differences in how they value policies? Existing research finds contradictory effects of gender on the attitudes of local leaders. For example, Schumaker and Burns (1988) found that women in local office valued women’s issues more than did their male counterparts (see also Holman 2015). Others fail to find differences, concluding that “gender differences tend to decline with the level of office” (Boles 2001, 69; see also Flammang 1985; Mezey 1978). Looking at school boards, Deckman (2007b) finds that women on school boards hold more liberal policy attitudes than their male counterparts (but see Donahue 1999). And women and men who serve on school boards may view the office differently, both in terms of policy concerns (Deckman 2007a) and ambition for future office (Sweet-Cushman 2017).

Gender and the Policy Process

Women in local appointed and elected offices engage more with constituents and use more inclusive approaches to policy-making (Kathlene 1994; Tilly and Gurin 1992). For example, women in local government are more likely to use inclusive budgeting processes (Weikart et al. 2007) and are less likely to perceive conflict with other leaders on their council (Heidbreder et al. 2011), consistent with scholarship in other settings that finds women are more collaborative (Barnes 2016). These interests translate into changes in public communication by mayors (Holman 2016) and to differences in the policy-making process. For example, in cities with women mayors, Holman (2015) finds that more citizens participate in public meetings, those meetings are more inclusive, and a broader set of community groups interact with the mayor.

Women in local appointed office also differ in their approach the policy-making process, as they are more likely to report incorporating citizens into important decision-making processes (Fox and Schuhmann 1999) and to focus on community relations (Fox and Schuhmann 2000). Future research might evaluate the degree to which public communication from cities varies with the gender of the mayor or council, similar to research at the state and national level (e.g., Schroedel et al. 2013; Heidbreder and Scheurer 2013).

Gender and Local Policy Outcomes

Women’s representation in local office also has the potential to shape policy outcomes. Women mayors increase women’s municipal employment (Ferreira and Gyourko 2011; Saltzstein 1986). Internationally, women in local office in India (Chattopadhyay and Duflo 2004) and Norway (Bratton and Ray 2002) shape women-friendly policy outputs. And women in local office change budget decisions: Holman (2015, 2014) finds that women mayors increase funding for social service programs (see also Smith 2014). Research also suggests that women on the city council may shape policy, but that their effect may be more pronounced when their proportion of the council increases beyond nominal levels (Holman 2014; Bratton and Ray 2002).

We know very little about how women’s underrepresentation in appointed offices like city manager might shape policy, but a robust body of scholarship on representative bureaucracies and gender suggests avenues for research. For example, research on policing finds that women’s representation in a police force is positively associated with increased reporting and arrests for sexual assault (Meier and Nicholson-Crotty 2006), and women’s representation in education administration shapes girls’ test scores (Keiser et al. 2002). Future research might build on Fox and Schuhmann’s (1999, 2001) work to examine whether the gender of a city manager shapes the policy-making process or policy outcomes.